South Dakota earns ‘F’ for judicial financial disclosure

12:01 am, December 4, 2013Updated: 12:19 pm, May 19, 2014

The Center for Public Integrity evaluated the disclosure rules for
judges in the highest state courts nationwide. The level of disclosure in
the 50 states and the District of Columbia was poor, with 43 receiving failing grades,
making it difficult for the public to identify potential conflicts of interest
on the bench. Despite the lack of information in the public records, the
Center’s investigation found nearly three dozen conflicts,
questionable gifts and entanglements among top judges around the country.
Here’s what the Center found in South Dakota:

Strengths:

South Dakota received a perfect score for its non-investment income disclosure.
Judges file annual disclosures with the Supreme Court and with the secretary
of state’s office just before taking their oaths; combined, these agencies
seek specific values of any income that judges earn outside of their judicial
salaries and the sources of spouses’ and children’s income. The court form
also asks for the source, description and value of any gifts received by
the justice during the reporting year.

Weaknesses:

Supreme Court justices in South Dakota must reveal only minimal information
about their investments. The statewide form, which all elected officials
file, only asks for business interests in which a filer or household member
controls more than 10 percent of the stock. Such a high threshold shields
ownership of most publicly traded stocks — a common cause for recusal in
other states — from the public.

Highlights:

South Dakota earned full points for its accountability measures. The secretary
of state’s office can fine judges who fail to file, according to Garrett
De Vries, the office’s state elections coordinator. If Supreme Court justices
— or any public officials — report “fishy” financial interests, De Vries
said, the secretary of state can refer them to the state attorney general.